Mideast Turmoil Could Rally Neocons to Hillary (Le Figaro, France)

[Purveyor]

Is Hillary Clinton positioning herself to win the ‘Dick Cheney’ vote? For France’s Le Figaro, world affairs columnist Pierre Rousselin writes that the turmoil in Iraq and Syria, if Republicans nominate a candidate with more isolationist tendencies like Rand Paul, is likely to result in significant neocon-Republican support for the former first lady.

For Le Figaro, Pierre Rousselin begins by examining the devisive debate in the United States over whose who most to blame for the unfolding disaster in Iraq and Syria:

American responsibility for the Iraq debacle is overwhelming, and gives rise to contradictory analyses. The blame all comes back to George W. Bush for having wanted, in 2003, to impose democracy on the country of Saddam Hussein, imagining that the troops would be “welcomed as liberators.” People close to the former president and those who supported his anti-terrorist “crusade” reckon that the recent turn of events proves them right. It would be the total retreat conducted by Barack Obama in late 2011 and the unconditional support given by Washington to the sectarian politics of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that led to the triumphant momentum of the jihadists that we are witnessing today in Sunni territory.

In the United States, both camps in this high-stakes, hyper-media shooting gallery are resuming an old battle that is likely to persist into the upcoming presidential election campaign. Iraq was the cemetery for the interventionist policies of the 43rd American president. For his successor, elected in large part because he was one of the few to have opposed this “stupid war,” this country is in the process of exposing, in an equally cruel manner, the dangers of a hasty strategic withdrawal.

Bush’s opponents based their arguments on his policy of preemptive military intervention. Iraq’s descent into the hell stems in fact from that fatal decision. But it is impossible to deny that the situation was much better than it is today before American troops had retreated and had managed to impose a truce in the civil war.

more...

http://themoderatevoice.com/196734/mideast-turmoil-could-rally-neocons-to-hillary-le-monde-france/

[karynnj]

1. This article itself is pretty audacious

What is to made of:

"It would be the total retreat conducted by Barack Obama in late 2011 and the unconditional support given by Washington to the sectarian politics of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that led to the triumphant momentum of the jihadists that we are witnessing today in Sunni territory. "

Let's take that apart.
1) The total retreat of Obama in 2011 -- you mean following the time table that was signed by GWB to leave the country? You mean leaving no "small" force behind because the Iraqis wanted us out and would not sign a SOFA agreement?

2) "unconstitutional support for the sectarian politics of Maliki? -First of all - which Constitution, theirs or ours. I honesty have NO idea what they mean as the difference between Bush and Obama is that we actually did NOT pick their President according to what suits us.

Maliki won the election. I have read the account of the man who convinced GWB to back Maliki in the first place who argues that he stopped backing him in 2010 and wanted the US to push the Iraqis to form a different government. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html ) It is the most incredible CYA I have ever read - and I've read a lot. The comments (at least back in early July showed many were not snowed.)

Biden was the point person in 2010 - and his history was of supporting an effort to allow three partitions in Iraq - shiite, Sunni and Kurd. It is very clear that he was NOT the force behind Maliki kicking out most of the Sunnis and Kurds from leadership. (It may have been that by 2010, the ideas that could have worked in 2006 - when Kerry/Feingold proposed a summit where IRAQIS could define their government or in 2007 - when Biden proposed essentially the same thing but added one option to consider was a government that gave significant power to decentralized partitions. The difference was that by 2009, the Iraqi government had a constitution, had had elections, and had elected their government. We were already phasing out on everything.

Obviously as Iraq has NEVER been well run or stable since Bush invaded, he STILL deserves blame -- he changed history and his impact will be there forever. As to who gets blame for things getting worse since 2011, it is Maliki. It was Maliki who threw the Sunnis out of any position where they had power. To blame the US for not taking charge and getting Maliki out -- is saying that we are their babysitter and we will change any regime going forward if we don't like it.

The ONLY reason the Obama administration might have some blame is because of Syria, which acted as a magnet to bringing together the jihadis. However, it seems Obama actually said no to Clinton and Petraeus who wanted to do far more. (The only virtue here for Clinton (or McCain) is that the result of the option not taken is never know.)